Running commentary on the things I've seen, the places I've been and what I've done in my measly years. It might help some, entertain others or bore everyone (including me). Regardless, let's get this started...

Pages

Monday, January 25

it's only defamation when it's a lie

sometimes i look before i leap. and when i do this, sometimes i regret it. for instance: softrice. i'm always surfing the internet for something interesting, particularly at work. usually it relates to a good restaurant in NYC, an interesting news article, etc. and when i find a particularly interesting website, i'll add it to my "Interesting" side bar on the right. that side bar is like my recommendation to ppl who may happen upon this site and have similar interests as me or just want something to read to waste a few mins. in the case of softrice, i stumbled upon his site while searching for info on Basta Pasta (see previous entry). i took a cursory glance and noticed he was providing information on places and events in NYC and i added him to my "Interesting" side bar with the intent of more thoroughly perusing it at a later time.

which i finally did today.

and boy did i regret it.

i only made it through the first 2 entries before i couldn't contain my gag reflex and had to close the window. the guy is a complete narcissist, male chauvinist, and overall egotistical pseudo-intellectual who believes himself better than thou. the 2 posts i did read contained multiple references to how "good-looking" he is and how ppl just like to be in his presence. i perused the first page but found no evidence of this so-called attractiveness, but i'll admit i found no evidence of any ugliness either. so softrice really could be very attractive, but come on, how often do you have to talk about yourself in terms of "i'm SOOO goood-looooking" (insert smarmy voice here).as you've noticed, he's been removed from the side bar. although i have linked him in this post (above) in case you'd like to check him out for yourself and form your own opinion. maybe you'll fall in love with him the way he apparently expects you to.

but before i do any more disparaging, i have to talk about an article i read in the NY Post. i read the article this weekend while stuck in my first 16 hours of CLE at BLS. after further googling the matter, i'm not sure of the time-frame or exact details so definitely don't refer to me if you decide to to discuss this later. essentially, a Canadian model successfully sued Google to reveal the identity of a blogger that had called her a "skank", "whore", etc. (just in case you were curious and wanted to check out the "offensive" blog, Skanks in NYC, it's been removed. i, too, was curious). while the incident itself was pretty entertaining, it brought up a lot of unsolved issues regarding the internet.immediately at the forethought of my mind: from what i gathered, the model was obtaining the blogger's identity so she could move forward with a defamation case. defamation consists of:"1.a false statement;2.published to a third party without privilege or authorization;3. with fault amounting to at least negligence;4. that caused special harm or defamation per se"

what i find personally interesting/entertaining in how to prove the blogger's statements were false, or conversely, how to prove the blogger's statements were true? would a judge or jury of peers get to decide exactly what qualifies as a "skank"? how many guys/partners do you have to sleep with before you're officially termed "whore"?

then there's the concept of the incident itself and what it may mean for internet use. with so many blogs out there (ahem, this one included), ppl write anything they want. and, when the concept was new, that kind of action was lauded and praised for being fearless and the new frontier. now, as more and more inane blogs arise (ahem, this one included?), there has arisen more and more criticism about the lack of intelligence, wit, and depth such blogs are providing. while that may be true, isn't what everyone writes just their opinion? and opinions aren't actionable, if i remember correctly. i disagree in interpretation with Brian Kumnick about the use of "whore" as a clear assertion of fact. "Liar" yes, "whore", no. in today's vernacular ppl throw that word around with little regard to it's actual meaning. there's "camera whore" and other terms, and, to me, they're all subjective perceptions.